Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Katzpur]

Many claim their church (Pope, Watchtower GB,) to be the final authority. That leaves lots of room for men to bind their rules on others. Jesus repeatedly rebuked the Pharisees for putting the fraditions of men on par with the word of God. This believer's standard of truth is the Bible and the Bible alone. It's what attracted me to identify with the group I worship with. I could never again be caught up in the traditions of men.

And yet the biblical canon was determined as a result of a decision made by mortal men. Mortal men safeguarded the texts (some better than others), mortal men transcribed them and mortal men translated them. Of course you can say that they were divinely led in their efforts, but the fact remains that human beings are fallible. Consider the following:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

At what point did the Bible become exactly what God wanted it to be?

 

[katiemygirl]

And yet the biblical canon was determined as a result of a decision made by mortal men. Mortal men safeguarded the texts (some better than others), mortal men transcribed them and mortal men translated them. Of course you can say that they were divinely led in their efforts, but the fact remains that human beings are fallible. Consider this information:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

At what point did the Bible become exactly what God wanted it to be?

We each need to work out our own salvation. I made a choice many years ago to go with Scripture alone, just as you have made your choice to go beyond what is written. It's a choice we will both take into eternity with us. Jesus will be our judge. I pray His grace will see us both in heaven.

 

[katiemygirl]

And yet the biblical canon was determined as a result of a decision made by mortal men. Mortal men safeguarded the texts (some better than others), mortal men transcribed them and mortal men translated them. Of course you can say that they were divinely led in their efforts, but the fact remains that human beings are fallible. Consider the following:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

At what point did the Bible become exactly what God wanted it to be?

You asked many questions in your post. They are good questions. It would take me a lot of time and research to answer each.

For me, it's a matter of faith. I believe we have all God wanted us to have in those 66 books. I've no reason to go outside. I made the decision to believe in Scripture alone the same way I made the decision to believe Jesus is the Son of God. My decisions were based on a multitude of Scriptures, which gave me faith in both Jesus and God's word.

I'm curious if you think there's something I MUST know, which is found outside of the Bible, that will effect my salvation or direct my christian walk. IOW, what detrimental thing is it that you think I'm missing?

 

[e.r.m.]

You are so right! And I know of no one who is more aware of this than myself. I am constantly on guard and will challenge anyone who tries to make their opinions God's truth, or who try to bind their own rules on others. It's not always a popular position to take, but I will never again be caught up in the teachings of men. I have been very blessed to have been with only two groups of christians for nearly forty years, one back home and one here in FL. Both have been very true to Scripture. I'd be gone if they weren't.

That's great!

 

[e.r.m.]

And yet the biblical canon was determined as a result of a decision made by mortal men. Mortal men safeguarded the texts (some better than others), mortal men transcribed them and mortal men translated them. Of course you can say that they were divinely led in their efforts, but the fact remains that human beings are fallible. Consider the following:

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

At what point did the Bible become exactly what God wanted it to be?

I've heard about one. There were four letters to the Corinthians, and they were combined into 1 &2 Corinthians. I don't know where one ends and the other starts.

 

[e.r.m.]

You asked many questions in your post. They are good questions. It would take me a lot of time and research to answer each.

For me, it's a matter of faith. I believe we have all God wanted us to have in those 66 books. I've no reason to go outside. I made the decision to believe in Scripture alone the same way I made the decision to believe Jesus is the Son of God. My decisions were based on a multitude of Scriptures, which gave me faith in both Jesus and God's word.

I'm curious if you think there's something I MUST know, which is found outside of the Bible, that will effect my salvation or direct my christian walk. IOW, what detrimental thing is it that you think I'm missing?

One of the things Mormons say are a series of rights Jesus gave, that were not included in the Bible.

 

[Katzpur]

I've heard about one. There were four letters to the Corinthians, and they were combined into 1 &2 Corinthians. I don't know where one ends and the other starts.

That may or may not be the case. Regardless, to pretend that we got a Bible through anything other than a long process which, at times, simply pitted one human opinion against another is to take a pretty naive view of the development of the canon.

 

[Katzpur]

One of the things Mormons say are a series of rights Jesus gave, that were not included in the Bible.

What rights are you talking about?

 

[e.r.m.]

The Bible is no more the final authority than the Church is. The final authority is God, however He may wish to communicate.

I agree that God is the final authority. But we have the Bible to root out teachings which are claimed to be from God and are not.

 

[e.r.m.]

What rights are you talking about?

I don't remember if it was this forum or the other forum I'm on, but it was a Mormon who was telling me. I'll look it up, but he mentioned a series of rites and specifically mentioned a bridal rite.

And, sorry, it was rites, not rights.

 

[Katzpur]

I agree that God is the final authority. But we have the Bible to root out teachings which are claimed to be from God and are not.

I'd say that's a reasonable answer.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't remember if it was this forum or the other forum I'm on, but it was a Mormon who was telling me. I'll look it up, but he mentioned a series of rites and specifically mentioned a bridal rite.

And, sorry, it was rites, not rights.

Oh, rites! No wonder I was confused. Do you have an issue with Christian sacraments? We call these rites or sacraments, if you will, "ordinances." One is what we call just "the Sacrament." It's the Lord's supper. There's also baptism, the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and blessings and annointings. Would you like me to tell you about the "bridal rite" (which is the temple wedding ceremony)?

 

[e.r.m.]

That may or may not be the case. Regardless, to pretend that we got a Bible through anything other than a long process which, at times, simply pitted one human opinion against another is to take a pretty naive view of the development of the canon.

I'm not entirely uninformed about the process, but I have been read a bit of the apocrypha, and it was sorely inconsistent about God's character than the canon. I believe in

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all---how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

I believe God was in control still. God even used Babylon to humble Israel.

 

[e.r.m.]

Oh, rites! No wonder I was confused. Do you have an issue with Christian sacraments? We call these rites or sacraments, if you will, "ordinances." One is what we call just "the Sacrament." It's the Lord's supper. There's also baptism, the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and blessings and annointings. Would you like me to tell you about the "bridal rite" (which is the temple wedding ceremony)?

I'll look it up. Yes, I have an issue with sacraments.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll look it up.

I don't believe you'll find it, but whatever.

Yes, I have an issue with sacraments.

Okay, well then it's understandable how you feel about Mormonism, because they're very important to us. I'm curious though... Do you reject all of the sacraments? Baptism? Marriage?

 

[Katzpur]

I believe God was in control still. God even used Babylon to humble Israel.

It apparently took God several centuries to get it right, then. That's got to make you wonder about all of those Christians that lived during the period of time when the only canon they had was not the final version. Just curious, do you also believe God was in control when the 4th and 5th century creeds were written?

 

[e.r.m.]

I don't believe you'll find it, but whatever.

Okay, well then it's understandable how you feel about Mormonism, because they're very important to us. I'm curious though... Do you reject all of the sacraments? Baptism? Marriage?

The concept of sacraments did not exist in the NT church. The RC Church later transformed mysterion into sacraments. Marriage and baptism are just marriage and baptism. There's no umbrella that unites the two.

 

[Katzpur]

The concept of sacraments did not exist in the NT church. The RC Church later transformed mysterion into sacraments. Marriage and baptism are just marriage and baptism. There's no umbrella that unites the two.

Okay, whatever. I guess this is one of those items we just don't agree on.

 

[atpollard]

The concept of sacraments did not exist in the NT church. The RC Church later transformed mysterion into sacraments. Marriage and baptism are just marriage and baptism. There's no umbrella that unites the two.

YOUR saying baptism isn't a big deal? ... sorry, I just couldn't resist.

 

[katiemygirl]

That may or may not be the case. Regardless, to pretend that we got a Bible through anything other than a long process which, at times, simply pitted one human opinion against another is to take a pretty naive view of the development of the canon.

Did you miss seeing my last post to you?